-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
pld459666
Registered User
success IN SPITE of Torts doesn't mean they don't have an issue with him.
pld459666
Registered User
frankthefrowner
Registered User
- Jan 13, 2007
- 1,685
- 0
lmao they succeeded despite him?? All of those players? Im not in a pro torts campt but that isnt remotley true.
pld459666
Registered User
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
Bryan Trottier was a victim of a culture and a roster that were ill-suited to any coach. I do seriously wonder about whether or not he would've turned out better in a different situation. The guy also coached a team whose captain not only dominated the room, but was one of his rivals when he was still playing. Not an easy scenario.
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
One thing we do is make the mistake of guys who have won Cups. This franchise is better off with someone hungry to win their first.
My point with the Trottier comment is that so many people are concerned about the on-ice offensive output. Certainly worth a conversation. But theres a lot more that goes into being an NHL coach. A lot more.
So "Oh, Joey Mullen was a good offensive player, lets try him" isnt going to cut it.
pld459666
Registered User
what I am saying is that Torts has a grating personality. Some guys can do their thing in spite of that, some can't.
I'm also saying that the three guys you mentioned would have found that success (can argue more success) under more friendlier tutelage.
That's not an indictment of Torts, more a credit to the players.
All three guys would be the same players they are today with any other HC. In fact I'd go so far as to say that Hagelin probably has more success with another HC as he seems to play better when he has consistent line-mates, something that is foreign to Torts.
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
I think the problem I have is the front office seems lazy. The moves that are made are expected and simple. We have a guy who is not a screamer and yeller. So let's get a Cup winning coach who screams and yells.
We need grit so go out and get a who you pay for a name and what he has done in the past.
There is no talent evaluation on this team.
This, in essence, wraps things up nicely.
Could be laziness, could be the fact money is being spent on players not even playing for this team instead of of talent evaluation, could be a whole host of things.
But the bottom line is for all the complaints about lack of on-ice creativity, the lack of creativity in the front office is much, much worse.
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
Like SBOB often says, how can you come to that point of creativity when there's really no plan but 'we are goin for it all this year !' ?
BroadwayBlues
KK24
The question was related to offense and Kreider.
He said that Kreider is so focused on playing defense that he's not being himself out there.
If you're a young player playing for Tortorella, it will take awhile because you have to play defense. You can't make mistakes because you will get benched.
He was pretty much saying stuff that was said on here.
You can go to WFAN to listen to the interview.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
Makes more sense. For example, Dan Bylsma wasn't a great offensive player but runs a system that does well in maximizing the firepower his team has. It's more about thinking the game well and communication than it is about the physical tools a guy had when he played.
JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK
Twenty f*ckin years
- Oct 8, 2010
- 80,023
- 17,636
Sather retooled the bottom-6 at the deadline.
It's a LOT better now. The Rangers have three legitimate top-nine units and a solid fourth line. Before, they had two capable top-nine units, a weak third line and an AHL-caliber fourth line. He also managed to shore up the bottom pair with the acquisition of Moore.
I, myself, like the roster that's currently constructed, to an extent. I'd like to see Richards replaced with a more capable, faster second line center (I like Brassard, but I like him even more in a sheltered third line role), but otherwise, I'm rather fine with going into next season with this roster.
Tortorella, however, I'd like to see replaced — if the Rangers are eliminated early, of course. The roster needs to be given a chance with a different coach. This isn't 08-09 where Renney objectively wasn't the problem, the roster was. This team has defensive depth, a good combination of skill and two-way ability in the top-nine, and, of course, an elite goaltender.
I'd like to see a first time HC, not one of the 'old-guard' or a retread, like Lindy Ruff. Maybe get a guy like Horacek, Eakins, or even Guy Boucher.
RangerFan10
Registered User
Torts doesn't strike me as a guy that lacks the hunger to win another one though.
I tend to lean into the pro-torts camp. All the guys that have washed out like Lisin, Zherdev, etc. that fans cry "didn't get a fair shake" never really went and did much else after the fact.
We saw just a few years ago the Bruins win with very similar handicaps. Had a hard time scoring and had an awful powerplay. It can drive a fan INSANE when they're struggling, but I think saying we're "close" is an understatement.
Torts is far from perfect. I defend and like the system he runs in theory but at some point you've got to get rid of the coach and try something else if it doesn't work. Considering the fact that we've had Gaborik, we've had Nash, Richards, etc. and it's still been an offensive struggle, it's probably time at the end of the season if we don't go deep into the playoffs again.
This season makes the least sense of all. Stepan has a breakout year. Nash and Cally do great. Hagelin puts up decent point totals. Brassard comes in and scores a point per game down the stretch. We have a legitimate top 6 AND a good bottom 6. Our defense has guys capable of contributing on offense. Yet we can only net one goal in two games against Brandon Holtby and the Caps defense. Terrible.
Hunter Gathers
The Crown
I don't really think a lack of creativity is a bad thing. Look at the Giants. The last creative team in football. Yet they have two Super Bowls to show for it where the "creative" Jets are basically rebuilding.
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
The Giants manage to find talent. The Ranges don't. The Giants know how to build a team. The Rangers don't. The Giants win championships. The Rangers don't.
Last edited:
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
I like Kreider. I'm not as down on him as some may be. But how do we know what Kreider is? And how do we know he's not being himself.
RangerFan10
Registered User
Tortorella has made it so clear that Kreider and Miller both aren't ready. If he had it his way Kreider would've barely seen any time this year, same for Miller probably.
None of us can tell what goes on behind closed doors, but after some of their worst games, Torts didn't sound negative in talking about them, he just sounded realistic and ready to work with them.
I'm also a firm believer that good defense will result in offensive chances. Jagr's best years, he often picked peoples pockets on the backcheck. Same for Gaborik. Nash's big rushes up the ice don't start in the neutral zone. So using focus on defense for Kreider is kind of a copout to me. Are his defensive instincts so bad that he had to focus on it in Connecticut that much that his numbers suffered as badly as they did?
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
There just doesn't seem to be any "outside the box" thinking (and I hate that phrase).
They let Avery walk. Then they hear how the Rangers miss Avery so they claim him off waivers. Where is the thinking? Did anyone really think that Avery was a good longterm fit with Torts?
The only real "find" they managed to get was Prust (and maybe Moore).
I'm tired of the lazy, expected moves.
RangerFan10
Registered User
You really think not finding talent is the issue here? Idk. I think there are a lot of parallels between the way the Giants draft and the way the Rangers draft. The Rangers rely heavier on free agency and trades but that's just the differences in sports.
Hunter Gathers
The Crown
Sure. But the Giants are one of the least creative teams around. They also have coaches that fans despise. Yet they win Super Bowls. Creativity is not the problem.
The main difference is JR vs. Sather. JR is clearly an elite GM whereas Sather was an elite GM. I think this team could succeed a hell of a lot more with the same coaching staff but a better GM. No need for the team to be creative, but finding low priced talent is something that they must do. Sather did a good job of that with the Gaborik trade, he did a good job of that when we got Prust, etc. Somehow, though, the free agent signings are just always horrible. Even our lower end ones. Look at how BRTUAL Pyatt is.
Someone needs to convince JR to become a hockey GM.
The main difference is JR vs. Sather. JR is clearly an elite GM whereas Sather was an elite GM. I think this team could succeed a hell of a lot more with the same coaching staff but a better GM. No need for the team to be creative, but finding low priced talent is something that they must do. Sather did a good job of that with the Gaborik trade, he did a good job of that when we got Prust, etc. Somehow, though, the free agent signings are just always horrible. Even our lower end ones. Look at how BRTUAL Pyatt is.
Someone needs to convince JR to become a hockey GM.
Hunter Gathers
The Crown
Sure. It absolutely is. The Giants rely quite a bit on finding the FA gems. Low priced guys that come in, compete, and make a difference. The Rangers have consistently failed in that regard under Sather.
- Status
